I've always guessed this was a major factor, though I still think too-low pay is a factor in a lot of cases, especially industries where pay tends to be anchored to minimum wage. However:
(a) This is public social media data, I guess? That seems like a noisy channel.
(b) Some of their suggestions are really dumb, and all miss the point in my view. If my boss is an ass, sponsoring a social event and expecting that to make things better is insulting.
The real solution theoretically doesn't have to cost any money: managers just have to be better people. For such famously bottom-line-driven organizations as large companies, it's funny how that zero-cost solution is so unlikely to actually happen.
The data presented in the article actually presents some pretty specific problems with management that don't boil down to managers needing to be "better people".
For example, employees want predictable schedules. The sectors with highest turnover mostly seem to be the kind that either embrace crunch culture or have seasonal demand. e.g. Retail workers are expected to put in more time during the holidays, when most would prefer to work less.
If management sets unrealistic deadlines, causing crunches, or fails to appropriately staff up to meet seasonal demand, employees face unwanted overtime and are more likely to resign.
Passing the buck onto employees for poor planning is bad management. Plain and simple. "Good people" often do this and are, consequentially, bad managers.
Unpredictable schedules is nothing to do with holiday work; that can be planned and agreed in advance, with suitable pay, and people will happily do it. What really grinds people's gears is "on demand / zero hours" scheduling: you have to ring up an hour before your shift starts to check whether it's actually going to start or been moved again.
With predictable scheduling you can work two part-time jobs. With zero-hour contracts, you can't (because they may whimsically decide to schedule conflicting shifts for you). And you can't budget because you have no idea how much you're going to be paid.
Retail and hospitality were infested with this nonsense, and as soon as workers have other options they quit it.
The hardest job I've ever had wasn't any of my software engineering jobs which paid six-figures: it was working at a retirement home as a dishwasher and food server. It paid $8.50 an hour (in 2007), and I didn't know my hours until the day before. It was hell, and I lasted two months before burning out.
Fair point in general, possibly, but I still disagree with your example. Passing the planning buck to your employees is Bad, which is not to say "good people" never do it, in the same way that "good people" occasionally cut you off on the freeway, by they definitely should know better. Part of being a good person is thinking through the consequences of your actions, including second-order consequences like instability you create in your employees' lives.
> The real solution theoretically doesn't have to cost any money: managers just have to be better people. For such famously bottom-line-driven organizations as large companies, it's funny how that zero-cost solution is so unlikely to actually happen.
Actually changing management culture at a large organization is very expensive if it’s even possible. Very far from a zero-cost solution.
I mean, it would be great if the entire management team just woke up and saw the light one day and became good managers, but this happens approximately never.
Success is much more likely with a complete management overhaul. If that is possible, and it often isn’t, then it will be very expensive.
Culture is incredibly sticky. If you're a startup with let's say 5 people, getting more people is like pouring cement on culture. It cannot be changed. The buck stops with the CEO.
Poor management practices, e.g. cancelling or changing shifts last minute, have real business value in terms of labour flexibility (for the employer), so in an employers' market, you can expect some businesses to take advantage of those practices to improve their bottom line.
The underlying shift, as I see it, is a scarcity of labour, combined with a bullishness of employee attitudes, leading to those poor practices being penalised where previously they had to be tolerated.
> (b) Some of their suggestions are really dumb, and all miss the point in my view. If my boss is an ass, sponsoring a social event and expecting that to make things better is insulting.
I thought a lot of it was good (c.f. the parallel discussion about predictability of hours for retail) but I agree this was really cringeworthy. I have actually left a team because of a clueless boss who kept trying to schedule "mandatory fun" like 7pm beers & axe tossing, for a bunch of 30+ engineers with kids.
(a) This is public social media data, I guess? That seems like a noisy channel.
(b) Some of their suggestions are really dumb, and all miss the point in my view. If my boss is an ass, sponsoring a social event and expecting that to make things better is insulting.
The real solution theoretically doesn't have to cost any money: managers just have to be better people. For such famously bottom-line-driven organizations as large companies, it's funny how that zero-cost solution is so unlikely to actually happen.